critique me please... pretty please

A common problem is to use too much DOF and have the suject get lost in the foreground/background detail. That is the problem, in my opinion, of the third shot - lots and lots of detail and we're really not sure where to start looking. On the other hand, the first shot has a pretty clear main subject, and the DOF is sufficiently shallow to allow the background to be present, yet not compete with the main subject. As for the second shot - you'd need a lot of words to describe what is in the frame, and nothing really stands out distinctly.

This is a very widespread point of view, but not nesessary the law. The main problem with shallow DoF in street photography - it does not look natural. Our vision does not have a shallow DoF. We do not see blurred backgrounds. Just as well we do not have selective color vision. So in many cases shallow DoF is just a gimmick aimed to compensate for a bad composition. It is OK in portraiture, but to be honest, in my view with street photography it is often a compromise. A perfect street photo to me is the one with clear focal point, lines of vision AND natural i.e. deep DoF.
 
A common problem is to use too much DOF and have the suject get lost in the foreground/background detail. That is the problem, in my opinion, of the third shot - lots and lots of detail and we're really not sure where to start looking. On the other hand, the first shot has a pretty clear main subject, and the DOF is sufficiently shallow to allow the background to be present, yet not compete with the main subject. As for the second shot - you'd need a lot of words to describe what is in the frame, and nothing really stands out distinctly.

This is a very widespread point of view, but not nesessary the law. The main problem with shallow DoF in street photography - it does not look natural. Our vision does not have a shallow DoF. We do not see blurred backgrounds. Just as well we do not have selective color vision. So in many cases shallow DoF is just a gimmick aimed to compensate for a bad composition. It is OK in portraiture, but to be honest, in my view with street photography it is often a compromise. A perfect street photo to me is the one with clear focal point, lines of vision AND natural i.e. deep DoF.

Nonetheless, there is a hierarchy of importance both in what we're looking at, and in a good picture. A good picture needn't be, and arguably shouldn't be, a merely accurate representation of what was in front of the camera. It should direct and manage our attention, it should organize what was in front of the lens. To what degree and using what means is a source of endless debate, to be sure.
 
A common problem is to use too much DOF and have the suject get lost in the foreground/background detail. That is the problem, in my opinion, of the third shot - lots and lots of detail and we're really not sure where to start looking. On the other hand, the first shot has a pretty clear main subject, and the DOF is sufficiently shallow to allow the background to be present, yet not compete with the main subject. As for the second shot - you'd need a lot of words to describe what is in the frame, and nothing really stands out distinctly.

This is a very widespread point of view, but not nesessary the law. The main problem with shallow DoF in street photography - it does not look natural. Our vision does not have a shallow DoF. We do not see blurred backgrounds. Just as well we do not have selective color vision. So in many cases shallow DoF is just a gimmick aimed to compensate for a bad composition. It is OK in portraiture, but to be honest, in my view with street photography it is often a compromise. A perfect street photo to me is the one with clear focal point, lines of vision AND natural i.e. deep DoF.

Nonetheless, there is a hierarchy of importance both in what we're looking at, and in a good picture. A good picture needn't be, and arguably shouldn't be, a merely accurate representation of what was in front of the camera. It should direct and manage our attention, it should organize what was in front of the lens. To what degree and using what means is a source of endless debate, to be sure.

I agree with that, of course. I just wanted to say that a truly good picture does not need artificial tools like selective sharpness (aka shallow DoF) or selective color (ala a No-No) to direct and manage our attention. We can not always achieve this, because of busy background, less than perfect compositions, unfortunate color scheme etc etc, but the very best street photos represent the moment the way we would see it with our own eyes - with everything in focus. That's how I see it. Others could disagree.
 
Last edited:

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top